Literalism

Shen, Dan

doi:10.1075/babel.35.4.03she

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…literal translation and free translation (cf. Shen 1989), have been employed. Under the influence of critics' evaluations, writers' comments, readers' reactions, theorists' criticisms, and most importantly, the success of certain translations, competition between these two strategies has been maintained.…”

Section: Strategic Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing the Process of Translating

Wong¹,

Shen²

2002

meta

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Strategic Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing the Process of Translating

Wong¹,

Shen²

2002

meta

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Landheer 1989: 40) While it must be admitted that the translations exist, they can safely be ignored by the theorist because they are inadequate. This kind of attitude basically resembles the argument used in the article by Dan Shen (1989) referred to above.…”

Section: Restricted Models Of Wordplay Translation and The Art Of Evmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Let us briefly consider an example of this. In a recent article Dan Shen (1989) attempts to demonstrate that literalist translation is in fact no translation, or in different words, that formal types of equivalence do not establish (genuine) equivalence at all. Having presented her case, the author then has to face up to the fact that translation relationships of this "formal" type have been resorted to very frequently indeed by translators from the most diverse traditions.…”

Section: Restricted Models Of Translationmentioning

confidence: 98%

A False Opposition in Translation Studies

Delabastita¹

1991

Target

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After some preliminary notes on the fragmented state of Translation Studies, the author directs his attention to one of the seemingly irreconcilable oppositions within the discipline, namely, between "theoretical" and "historical" approaches to translation. On the basis of insights from modern epistemology it is claimed that the two are, in fact, complementary and that one should aim for a continuous interplay between them. Normative approaches fail to achieve this and prove to have little explanatory power when confronted with the historical reality of translation. Four discursive strategies are discussed whereby this anomaly is often camouflaged or explained away.Résumé: Après avoir commenté en quelques lignes l'état fragmenté de la "Science de la traduction", l'auteur de l'article concentre la discussion sur une des distinctions apparemment irréductibles acceptées jusqu'ici par les spécialistes, à savoir la distinction entre les approches dites "théoriques" et "historiques". Sur la base de vues empruntées à l'épistémologie contemporaine, l'auteur soutient que les deux sont en fait complémentaires et que les chercheurs feraient bien de viser une interaction constante entre les approches en question. Or, les approches normatives ne respectent pas une telle démarche, ce qui fait que leur pouvoir d'explication est bien limité face à toute réalité historique en matière de traduction. Vient alors la discussion de quatre stratégies discursives à propos desquelles les lacunes en question sont souvent camouflées ou délibérément ignorées.

show abstract

“…Despite this controversial theoretical approach, Vilem made a significant contribution to the transformation of Middle High German, which had not been fully developed, into literary language, by enriching it with some grammatical and syntactical devices and techniques from Latin and Italian (Koptilov, 2002). Discussing the basis of literalism and the pragmatic need for its survival, Shen (1989) claims that literalism is "word translation plus syntax transplantation, imposing source language's peculiar syntax on translation language words, treating translation language as a syntactically unpatterned system". Speaking of literalism supporters, we could not but mention V.V.…”

Section: Supporters Of Literal Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literal approach to translation: a classification and literature review

Lomaka¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studies the two approaches to translation which have been the subject of debate for a long time -the literal approach and the free approach. It presents the theoretical and conceptual framework of literal translation by illuminating the studies of a number of researchers with different attitudes to this phenomenon. The paper shows that there is no consensus among researchers on whether literal translation or free translation should be considered primarily an approach to translation. The study also analyzes the notion of literalism and distinguishes between the main types of literalisms (etymological, semantic, lexical and grammatical) by illustrating examples. The paper uses general scientific methods such as observation, analysis and synthesis, as well as descriptive, classification, generalization and selection methods. The author proves that literalism often causes the distortion of meaning and violates the norms of the target language. Therefore, the translator should carefully select equivalents to prevent the artificiality of translation.

show abstract

Literalism

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Factors Influencing the Process of Translating

Factors Influencing the Process of Translating

A False Opposition in Translation Studies

Literal approach to translation: a classification and literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About